Asimov Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 In regards to killing people who are guilty? I don't think so, but then again a vigilante has no regard for the process of determining whether or not someone IS guilty. If we had a better justice system, there wouldn't be vigilantes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redross Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 Vigilantes are alright as long as they attack the right guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KT45 Posted October 16, 2006 Author Share Posted October 16, 2006 This is to Asimov (redross can answer if he likes) since he supports the Ayn Rand view of Objectivism. I recently read something concerning Ayn Rand and here views on homosexuality. In 1971, Rand published The New Left, a collection of essays which directly attacked the feminist and sexual liberation movements, including the gay rights movement. She called them "hideous" for their demand for what she considered "special privileges" from the government. She also addressed homosexuality itself, writing that "[T]o proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians... is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the kind of language I do not like to see in print." ("The Age of Envy")In response to questions from the audience at the two Ford Hall Forum lectures she gave at Northeastern University, Rand explained her stance in more detail. In her 1968 lecture, she said, "I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults." (Ayn Rand Answers, p. 18) In 1971, Rand repeated this stance, then explained that homosexuality "involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises", concluding that homosexuality "is immoral, and more than that; if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting." I’m basically just curious on your thoughts on the issue about homosexuality and if it moral. Do you feel Ayn Rand was wrong on this issue? I like to take what redross had to say about where we get our morality from. if an act is detrimental to the formation or sustainability of a society than it is immoral. This includes murder, theft, lying etc. because if those acts were performed in widespread fashion the social bonds needed to maintain/create a society would not form. Now if homosexuality was performed in widespread fashion (or if most people did it) wouldn’t it hurt society? Wouldn't society crumble? If no, why not? If yes then is homosexuality immoral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 I’m basically just curious on your thoughts on the issue about homosexuality and if it moral. Do you feel Ayn Rand was wrong on this issue? I think she was definitely right in saying that "...it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults." I think she was misinformed on the issue, and therefore wrong. Her understanding of it was a straw-man created out of ignorance of how homosexuality comes about. Now if homosexuality was performed in widespread fashion (or if most people did it) wouldn’t it hurt society? Wouldn't society crumble? If no, why not? If yes then is homosexuality immoral? Not necessarily, as long as there is procreation going on. It might be more beneficial for population growth because we could have kids as needed. Anyways, homosexuality isn't a choice that people make anymore than being heterosexual is a choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KT45 Posted October 21, 2006 Author Share Posted October 21, 2006 Animal abuse/testing - I despise both of these. Highly immoral Redross, why is this immoral? before you said....I think we've covered this but: if an act is detrimental to the formation or sustainability of a society than it is immoral. This includes murder, theft, lying etc. because if those acts were performed in widespread fashion the social bonds needed to maintain/create a society would not form.hurting or torturing animals, if performed in widespread fashion doesn't hurt social bonds and it isn't detrimental to the formation of society. Are you saying it is immoral merely because you despise it? Is it because you feel animals have moral status? If so why do you? To Asimov or redross, is it possible to commit an immoral act to a person with no moral status (the person is proven to have done an immoral act and therefore has no moral status)? An example is it immoral to steal from a thief or to torture a murderer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Well, I think that's because animals we test on are sentient, can feel pain, and do live in our society. I don't think it would be considered stealing to take something from a thief, and it's amoral to torture a murderer. So it's not necessary, but it's not wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KT45 Posted October 21, 2006 Author Share Posted October 21, 2006 Well, I think that's because animals we test on are sentient, can feel pain, and do live in our society. If animals have moral status because they are sentient beings then that would make it immoral to consume/eat them right? Unless you feel the animals moral status is somehow less then ours. P.S. - I'm just asking to help me understand your worldview of morality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Well, I think that's because animals we test on are sentient, can feel pain, and do live in our society. If animals have moral status because they are sentient beings then that would make it immoral to consume/eat them right? Unless you feel the animals moral status is somehow less then ours. P.S. - I'm just asking to help me understand your worldview of morality No, that would not constitute murder. We need meat to survive and we need meat products to maintain a healthy diet. We are animals too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KT45 Posted October 21, 2006 Author Share Posted October 21, 2006 If animals have moral status because they are sentient beings then that would make it immoral to consume/eat them right? Unless you feel the animals moral status is somehow less then ours. P.S. - I'm just asking to help me understand your worldview of morality No, that would not constitute murder. We need meat to survive and we need meat products to maintain a healthy diet. We are animals too. Some vegetarians might disagree but I don't want to side track. You said we eat other animals to survive. We also kill them for fun (hunting). Other animals like us (cats) kill just for fun as well. When we kill animals (sentient beings with feelings etc) just for enjoyment is it immoral? Why does our food get moral status? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 You said we eat other animals to survive. We also kill them for fun (hunting). Other animals like us (cats) kill just for fun as well. When we kill animals (sentient beings with feelings etc) just for enjoyment is it immoral? Why does our food get moral status? I think killing for the pure pleasure of it is immoral. I don't know if our food gets moral status, that is something I'd have to consider a bit more. This is an interesting discussion that ryan and I've had before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KT45 Posted October 23, 2006 Author Share Posted October 23, 2006 I am starting to feel that redross definition is somehow incomplete or completely incorrect. This is his definition. I think we've covered this but: if an act is detrimental to the formation or sustainability of a society than it is immoral. This includes murder, theft, lying etc. because if those acts were performed in widespread fashion the social bonds needed to maintain/create a society would not form. This contradicts some acts he called amoral such as the following Abortion - to quote one of my professors, 'there is no good reason not to abort'. Fetus' do not have moral status so any action performed on them is amoral. Suicide - amoral I agree that these are amoral acts but they don't fit redross' definition. If both of these are done in widespread fashion then they are detrimental to the formation or sustainablitilty of a society. I don't think the criteria for defining something as immoral should be based on if it is done in widespeard fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redross Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 In response to the abortion argument, I must honestly say that that is one problem I have yet to solve. I believe that abortion is moral (or at least amoral) yet I do believe that it's widespread use would be detrimental to the sustainability of a society. I'll have to get back to you once I reconcile these notions. Good question. As for the killing and eating of animals for food, except for veal, I have no problem with it. As long as we do not cause the animals undue suffering (some suffering will be incurred as a result of being in captivity, but it will not be of the horrible kind) then it is alright to use them as food. Any harm the animals suffer as a result of anything directly unrelated to their use as food is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KT45 Posted October 27, 2006 Author Share Posted October 27, 2006 Any harm the animals suffer as a result of anything directly unrelated to their use as food is wrong. I agree with this statement. But my agreement is based soley on an emotional response. My question is, how do you rationalize this? Why do animals get moral status? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts